John Cannis

[Division No. 11, October 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The hon. member, with all due respect, referred to “honourable members, some of them”. I would like to think that every member in this House is an honourable member. If he tells us who is not—

[Berg Chilling Systems, October 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, today I recognize a company in my riding of Scarborough Centre that has had major successes in the international trade community.

Berg Chilling Systems is a family owned business employing 81 people which manufactures industrial refrigeration systems. Its systems are exported to 29 countries around the world, and in 1996 exports accounted for 68% of its total sales.

On Monday of this week the company was awarded the 1997 Canada Export Award by the Minister for International Trade at a ceremony in Quebec City. This award recognizes outstanding performance by a smaller exporter in the global forum.

I congratulate Berg's chairman Lorne Berggren and its president Don Berggren on their achievements. I wish them and the company continued success.

[Speech From The Throne, October 2nd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, that is what I refer to when I say exploitation. The cacophony of condemnation is so swift from the Bloc Quebecois it is unbelievable.

She talked about manpower. This is where they confuse the issue. I remind the member that when the Quebec government asked for manpower training this government was more than willing to give it the responsibility for manpower training. That has been done.

Maybe what they should do in the Quebec legislature is look at how to refine and use the tools which we have given them, as opposed to exploiting them for their own agenda.

[Speech From The Throne, October 2nd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for an excellent question.

I talked the other day in an S.O. 31 of an accountable senator. The key work was unaccountable.

The member knows that he and I and every individual sitting in this House have to go to the people every four or five years. The people judge us based on our performance, results, programs, etc. I bring back that word today in response to the question, unaccountable.

Senator Pat Carney is unaccountable because she does not have to go to the people every four years. Maybe the time has come to look at the other house and make those senators accountable, whether it be for their attendance or what they say, for the sake of this country. follows They should be held accountable for what they say. They should have to go to the people every four or five years and present themselves as candidates so that when they speak in every region of this country they will have to answer to the people, as we have to answer to the people.

Yes, I agree that the time has come that maybe we should have an elected Senate.

[Speech From The Throne, October 2nd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me today to have the opportunity in the 36th Parliament to join in the debate on the Speech from the Throne.

I begin by thanking the residents of Scarborough Centre for once again entrusting me with their vote and their confidence. It was a privilege and an honour for me to have represented them during the 35th Parliament. That I find myself today in the 36th Parliament I owe it to them and I thank them. I pledge to them that I will once again do my utmost to bring their concerns to this honourable House. I also thank my volunteers, for had it not been for their support and commitment the excellent result we achieved would not have happened.

I also take this opportunity to thank my staff: Costas, Effy, Sandra and Kathy for keeping our office in an excellent working mode and serving our constituents during the election period. I thank my entire family, especially my two sisters, Nomike and Kathy, for their love and support. Also a very special thanks goes out to our riding president, Ernie Chaplin, for his dedication and continued support.

Last but not least I thank my children, Irene, Paul and Daniel, and my partner and loving wife, Mary. I say “Thank you, Kohani, for your love and support. You are my Rock of Gibraltar”.

Since the debate began last week many members have spoken on the throne speech. They brought forth many issues and many statistics. They dissected, analysed and commented on the throne speech in a way they chose to interpret it. I am sure every member in this honourable House respects each other's views whether we agree or disagree.

This is the arena where we all come to debate, to state our position, to bring forth the concerns of our constituency and our region. Because time does not permit I do not want to go into an in depth analysis and talk about how, when the Liberal government took office in 1993, the unemployment rate was at 11.5 percent and today as we all know it is 9 percent and dropping; how we inherited a $42 billion deficit from a Conservative government that had never met its budget targets; or how we inherited a country so weakened from all aspects that we were being described as a third world economy. Our social safety net was also falling apart, not being able to address our needs today let alone the needs of the future.

Within just a few short years and as a result of prudent initiatives, we have restored our economic sovereignty and have put our country on a solid footing. We are once again a nation and all of us as Canadians, whether we live in Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, Manitoba or wherever, can realistically see the light at the end of the tunnel. These initiatives are well known and the results are well documented.

I personally do not want to gloat about them. I choose to leave it up to the economists, the statisticians, the pundits and, yes, even the international community. Mostly I leave it up to the people of Canada to be the judge.

When I was canvassing during the election the households I visited in my riding often confronted me with various issues such as our pension system, our health system, our deficit, our job initiatives, crime issues, moral issues and issues such as the fiasco of topless women, which I might add I do not support and find unacceptable. I hope the government will do something to right that wrong. As members can see there are a variety of concerns.

However there was a common issue in each and every household, the issue of Canadian unity and how our country today is being torn apart. I was constantly asked what was happening to our country and why, when we have the privilege of living in the best country in the world, we would want to destroy it.

I was told a small group of separatists wanted to break up a country which on more than one occasion has been recognized as the best country in the world to live in. It is beyond me and the constituents of Scarborough Centre.

A strong message given to me in the last election, to do whatever I can to make sure the country stays united. I pledge to my constituents and to everybody else that I will do everything within my power to make sure not only us and our children but generations to come will inherit a country that is strong financially and indeed united.

It takes more than the member for Scarborough Centre and the constituents of Scarborough Centre. It takes more than just rhetoric. It takes goodwill and understanding from all Canadians. It will take political will and not the political rhetoric often used to exploit the weak and the vulnerable.

My constituents—and I know I speak for a vast number of Canadians—have recently been greatly disturbed by the comments of an unelected member of the Senate, Pat Carney. She suggested that separation be left on the negotiating table and that there was a bias shown by the federal government toward B.C.

Let me remind the senator that six Liberal members were elected from British Columbia and four of them are ministers of the crown and one is a parliamentary secretary. That is a hell of a lot better than what her and her boss, Brian Mulroney, did during their mandate.

That is not all. Even the Reform member from South Surrey, B.C., in an article I read just the other day agrees with Ms. Carney that separation will be on the table when B.C. attempts to negotiate a new deal with Canada. The article goes on to state:

While she agreed that Ms. Carney's comments were irresponsible, she said the senator was only expressing the concerns of British Columbia.

What a flip-flop. This is what they call their new style of politics, saying one thing one day and another the next, tailoring the message for one region and changing it for another region.

The leader of the Conservative Party used that tactic during the last election and we all know how it backfired. Therefore I suggest members of the Reform Party take note.

Now we have the NDP. One of its senior members, the member for Burnaby—Kingsway, is ready to tie himself to a fishing vessel and at the same time advocate the same type of tactics. The Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois are simply saying their way or the highway. That is not the approach to recommend.

I am appalled at the tactics being used here. Why is it that before we sit down to negotiate we first threaten separation? For example, when a family problem comes up, does the husband and wife first talk about separating or do they for the love of their family and children sit down and rationally work things out? They comprise if they have to because we all know there is no perfect solution.

Why must we always start our negotiations with a knife to the throat? Is that what we are all about? Is that the Canadian way? I do not think it is.

When we find ourselves abroad we have no hesitation in talking about our wonderful country. Proudly we talk about our systems, our lifestyle and everything we have in this great country. When we return home we also say how great it is to be home, even though we have visited some exotic places.

I spoke earlier about the family. Let me tell members about a special family. This past year we had two unfortunate and tragic incidents in Canada, the Saguenay and the Manitoba floods. It was that special Canadian family that lived in Scarborough, Saskatoon, Vancouver, Trois Rivieres and Charlottetown. Together they came, cared, reached out and helped.

I recall one interview in which a gentleman from the Saguenay region, with tears in his eyes, said how moved he was by the response from the rest of Canada. He went on to say how he voted yes in the last referendum. But he said that in the next referendum, and he hoped there would never be another referendum, he would vote for Canada because he now saw the light.

That is what we are about, a caring and loving country. This is the country that is admired worldwide. That is what makes us all proud and different Canadians.

I close with a statement made almost 130 years ago by Sir John A. Macdonald, one of the founders of this country.

If I had influence over the minds of the people of Canada, any power over their intellect, I would leave them with this legacy. Whatever you do, adhere to the Union. We are a great nation and shall become one of the greatest in the Universe if we preserve it. We shall sink into insignificance and adversity if we suffer it to be broken. Let no factious men put it asunder.

[Speech From The Throne, October 2nd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment.

I listened with great interest to the member from the Bloc Quebecois and there are a few things I would like to point out. We have to accept in this House the comments from the opposition party on how it feels about our programs and our achievements. However, I believe the best judge of that is the people of Canada. They reflected this in the last election by not only renewing our mandate but by sending the message to the Bloc Quebecois, because its numbers went from 54 to 44.

The member talked about the national forum on health. Consultation was done well before the election and when its recommendation came back one of its highlights was to restore funding to a base of $12.5 billion. Without hesitation the prime minister and the government took the initiative to restore the funding and accepted the recommendation of the committee. At the same time they went beyond and added $50 million over the next three years, which the member also pointed out.

I want to comment on the point the member made about the aspirations and the path to freedom. I am puzzled about the use of the word freedom. I feel I and the rest of Canada are being told we are hostages held in a ball and chain. As a Canadian, whether I live Quebec, Ontario or British Columbia, I like to believe I have freedom. I have the freedom to vote, I have the freedom to select, I have the freedom to travel, I have the freedom to choose. Maybe in Quebec I am restricted as to the schools I can send my children, but that is for the Quebec people to decide.

I do not know what the member means by the path of freedom. As Canadians we are all free citizens.

[British Columbia, September 29th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, hearing Conservative Senator Pat Carney of British Columbia last week making statements that frustrated provinces should not rule out separation from Canada made me very angry and very upset not only as a Canadian, not only as a parliamentarian, but as a parent who, along with my colleagues, is working diligently to make sure we make this country of ours prosperous, strong and united for us, our children and generations to come.

Pat Carney, an unelected and it would seem unaccountable appointee, made a statement about how tired she was of the bias shown by the federal government toward B.C.

Let me point out that there were six Liberal members elected from B.C. of which four are ministers and one is a parliamentary secretary. I say bravo to the prime minister and shame on Pat Carney. I was glad to hear the other members of the Conservative Party, including their leader, not support her views.

Why is it that every time the federal government does not agree with the provinces these types of tactics have to be used? Today Sir John A. Macdonald would be turning in his grave. Long live a strong and united Canada.

[Speech From The Throne, September 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I remember in 1967 the Toronto Maple Leafs won the Stanley Cup and 90 percent of the team was made up of older players who brought a wealth of experience and knowledge to the team. Punch Imlach was able to bring the Stanley Cup to the Toronto Maple Leafs. Similarly, this administration and its leaders with a wealth of knowledge and expertise has done many things.

I congratulate the member on her election. She referred to damage done by the Liberal government's first mandate. I would like to talk about that damage for a minute: damage such as 900,000 jobs created in its first mandate; damage such as inheriting a deficit of $42 billion which her Conservative Party left us with—and it is now said to be anywhere from zero to $5 billion; damage such as creating the fastest growing economy in the G-7; damage such as creating opportunities for youth in the programs outlined in the throne speech and before; damage such as, as the national health forum indicated before the election, the need to make the ceiling $12.5 billion. Immediately the government restored it.

I have a question for the hon. member. She talked about lowering payroll taxes. Is the member aware that when the Liberal government took over in 1993 the Conservative government had it pegged at $3.30 per $100? Does she know what the Liberal government did from day one until now?

If she does not know, I will be glad to remind her. If she does know, I would like her to point out what the payroll taxes are today as opposed to what they were under a Conservative government.

[Speech From The Throne, September 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate you on your appointment.

I was not surprised to hear the member from the NDP trying to draw a parallel between us and former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. Aside from his actions in tearing up his speech, he failed to draw to our attention that the Brian Mulroney and Conservative era left us with a humongous deficit of $42 billion that we inherited in 1993.

It is nice of them to say that we have to do this and we have to do that, but if we are adding debt and debt we will never be able to implement any of the programs such as the scholarship fund. Unfortunately he was not listening.

He failed to bring forth that just last week one of the local papers in the greater Toronto area stated that employment levels were as high as they were in 1989. They have been rising. They all talk about doom and gloom. They do not want to talk about the good news that has been happening out there. They do not want to talk about the fact that in 1993 unemployment rates were 11.5 percent and today that are at 9 percent and dropping.

We have to point out to the people that spending our way out of this is not the solution. The member is saying “Let's open the purse. Let's spend. It doesn't matter how much debt we will have. Let's just keep adding to it”.

[Peacekeeping, April 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

We are all quite aware of Canada's longstanding tradition of peacekeeping initiatives. Canada's contributions throughout the globe are second to none. One such initiative was the participation of Canadian troops in UN peacekeeping operations in Cyprus.

I would like to ask the minister today to inform the House of any new developments with respect to Canada's role in Cyprus that may help bring a just and peaceful solution.